Name: - Muhammad Ahmad Waheed

I.D F2017117063

Answer No. 1 (a)

Firstly privileged communication is defined as the communication

which is privileged from forced disclosure. So according to article
9 of QSO the communication of advocate with his client is
protected and having a privileged to not to disclose the
communication in front of anyone but here in this case an
advocate A testifies in the court that his client B during the course
of his employment asked A to prepare a False document so he can
take possession of certain property on the basis of it and then the
B the client object this statement as breach of privilege
communication according to my point of view and proviso of
article 9 QSO said that the advocate cant disclose any
communication made to him or any document which he may
know even when know the employment as an advocate come to
end but the communication shall not be privileged when it is
made in furtherance of an illegal object or document under
proviso 1 of article of QSO the privilege between A and his client B
it is not protected because the advocate bound to inform the
court about illegal document and dishonest activity when asked
by the court it may affect the interest of client but it is not the
privilege of his client and it is a crime.

(B)

In this scenario W a police officer appears in the court as a

prosecution witness. Defense counsel asks him to disclose what
instruction was passed to him by his senior officer a day before
the occurrence. No such question be asked to any public officer
according to article 7 chp two no officer is compelled to disclose
any communication made to him official confidence when he
know that it is matter of public interest so in this case defense
counsel cannot asked question to any police officer to disclose the
communication of his senior s official he is bound to keep the
secret under art 17 of QSO because it may harm the public
interest.

Answer no 2

A robbery takes place in day light and a victim C was forced on

gun point to deliver his belonging to D (the culprit) R (watchman)
the witness who sees the glimpse of D. After arrest police called
the witness R to identify the culprit and he immediately identify
the culprit but fails to mention the action what he did the main
defect is the culprit don’t know the witness and R has to be
identify the face and action as well of the culprit then its
admissible and the prosecution is bound to prove in the court.
(Case 2000 PCrLJ 331)Identification parade is not a law but a
requirement of law that is held to identify the culprit in the
presence of magistrate its valid and admissible to be used as
evidence in trial by the prosecutor to catch the culprit.

Answer No 3

The statement of dying person is admissible only when it is about

his result of death. Its admissible only when the person who is
declarant talk about or give the clue of his murder or may be said
the cause of his death is admissible only and the primary
requirement of the dying declaration is influence free it can be
record by a magistrate and a doctor or a third person or two
notable who are unconnected with the maker of statement. On
the basis of designated person it is only admissible when he has
no direct link with the cause of his death or the prosecutor or
magistrate thinks that it may be relevant to the cause of the death
and may use as a evidence in court .However in case 2002MLD
1689 held that conviction can be based solely on dying declaration
without the independent corroboration if it’s true and free from
outside matters.

Answer No 4

When the suit of divorce is file in the court and that is the main
cause of divorce so the talk between the husband and wife is not
privileged article 5 of QSO and when we talked about he charged
of robbery on M the prosecutor can under articl of QSO is
allowed to asked the question and it’s not privileged and M can
disclose the conversation that disclose between him and his wife
if he hide then it’s a crime and M is the responsible for his action.

Answer No 5

H a 7 year child if prosecution intend to produce him as witness

the legal requirement for minor is he can understand the question
and give rational answer to court as if court considered the
answer that’s minor provide be used in case and testimony of that
minor person is admissible.

X the man and the Y the wife signed an agreement to sell so in the
eye of law in the financial matter it’s not valid because the two
witnesses is required for the women in transaction matter to
signed the contract it is not legal but in criminal matters it is void
and in hudood matters its void.